Not sure where this facebook account got this graph? Over 70million hectares burned in 1999-2000 (that's over 172 million acres).
I've no idea why DSSS's posts get you so worked up L2, quite seriously, I don't. Your posting is no less infuriating to those of us who disagree with you. It has been pointed out ad nauseum that deliberately starting graphs at 1998 (a well established bit of bad science from deniers) skews your data because it was a stand out year within that very specific small window. That's cherry-picking my man pure and simple. (I've no idea why you would chose to die on that particular hill.) Viewed against a larger data set it becomes much less definitive, some say it disappears all together. So insisting on posting about it as though it is illustrative and robust seems disingenuous at best. Just bad faith at worst.
You dismiss Coburg's post about viewpoint bias, calling it a 'strawman' then immediately claim that data was adjusted specifically to fit a 'warmest' (leftist) narrative. That strawman seems to have more than a bit of flesh on him.
Got it now. It's a conspiracy theory!
Find me one chart where the UAH readings have been altered. There are hundreds online. Find me one that looks as different as your alarmist horseshit.
It's interesting Lee has not strayed into commentary on my video because he believes in that nutjobbery, but knows he will be exposed if he endorses it.
I don't put much store in parody videos (or memes), and don't have the patience to sit through 25 minutes of it.
“The estimates that we’re getting of the trends from the surface temperature network and ocean buoy network is matched to a ridiculous certainty by the trends that we’re getting from this remote sensing,” said NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt, a co-author on the study, which was led by fellow NASA scientist Joel Susskind.
The study focuses on a relatively recent NASA satellite measurement system known as the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder, or AIRS, that began collecting data in 2002. The system takes measurements of the Earth’s “skin temperature,” or the temperatures right at the surface of the planet.
The post began with a statement about man contributing to global warming. That much is overwhelmingly likely. Coburg then falsely claimed it for the left.
The leftist bit is the alarmism.
Last time I'm going to explain this.
All climate records once clearly showed a pause/hiatus in global warming after 1998.
That pause no longer exists in official land-based temperature records.
Climate change whistleblower alleges NOAA manipulated data to hide global warming 'pause'
This is one of many alterations to climate records which, without exception, contribute to the narrative of today's climate as exceptional.
The post began with a statement about man contributing to global warming. That much is overwhelmingly likely. Coburg then falsely claimed it for the left.
The leftist bit is the alarmism.
you keep presenting the same graph that is intentionally skewed to present your case
But if you believe, as some conservatives do, that "The earth is warming and human beings are contributing to it" is a left wing statement
Oh you wicked man.
You seem really stuck on this.
Last time I'm going to explain this.
All climate records once clearly showed a pause/hiatus in global warming after 1998.
That pause no longer exists in official land-based temperature records.
Climate change whistleblower alleges NOAA manipulated data to hide global warming 'pause'
This is one of many alterations to climate records which, without exception, contribute to the narrative of today's climate as exceptional.
The post began with a statement about man contributing to global warming. That much is overwhelmingly likely. Coburg then falsely claimed it for the left.
The leftist bit is the alarmism.
Which graph is intentionally skewed? I purposely linked to three of them from different sources that show essentially the same thing, i.e. little or no warming in the period after 1998.
The one that shows the pause, the old data that begins at 1998.